You are here: / / Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained

Motion to Suspend Child Support Properly Denied; Criteria Explained

In affirming Supreme Court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion to suspend child support, the Second Department explained the criteria for early suspension of the child support obligation:

Generally, parents have a statutory duty to continually support their children until they reach 21 years of age (see Family Ct Act § 413[1][a]…). ” However, where the noncustodial parent establishes that his or her right of reasonable access to the child has been unjustifiably frustrated by the custodial parent, child support payments may be suspended'” … .

Here, contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied, without a hearing, that branch of his motion which was to suspend his obligation to pay child support. The plaintiff alleges continuing conduct on the part of the defendant which, if proven, would not “rise to the level of deliberate frustration’ or active interference’ with the noncustodial parent’s visitation rights”… . Jones v Jones, 2013 NY Slip Op 05879, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
Constructive Trust Properly Imposed—Sister, Who Was Not Included on the Original Deed Because of Credit Problems, Contributed One-Third of the Downpayment Based Upon a Promise She Would Be Added to the Deed at a Later Time
PLAINTIFF IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE DID NOT SEE THE CONDITION THAT CAUSED HIM TO FALL NEAR A SINK IN DEFENDANTS’ BATHROOM, BUT HIS PANTS WERE WET AFTER THE FALL; DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE GROUND THAT PLAINTIFF COULD NOT IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT DID NOT ERR IN HOLDING THE SORA HEARING IN DEFENDANT’S ABSENCE WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION OF DEFENDANT’S COMPETENCE, THERE WERE CLEAR SIGNS DEFENDANT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCEEDINGS.
Ordinance Making Abutting Property Owners Responsible for Removal of Ice and Snow from a Sidewalk Did Not Impose Tort Liability on Abutting Property Owner
DUE DILIGENCE STANDARD FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS PURSUANT TO CPLR 308 (4) WAS MET (SECOND DEPT).
EVIDENCE DEFENDANT COMMITTED A BANK ROBBERY ONE MONTH AFTER THE CHARGED MURDER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER MOLINEUX TO FILL IN A GAP IN THE EVIDENCE OR EXPLAIN A RELATIONSHIP WITH A WITNESS OR TO SHOW A CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT; A WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO TESTIFY DEFENDANT THREATENED TO KILL ANOTHER WITNESS UNDER THE “OPENING THE DOOR” THEORY BECAUSE THERE WAS NO MISLEADING TESTIMONY WHICH NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED (SECOND DEPT).
Admissible Hearsay Concerning the Child’s Injuries and Evidence Relevant to the Child’s Motivation to Lie Should Not Have Been Excluded from the Neglect Proceeding
SUPREME COURT PROPERLY GRANTED DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS PERSONAL INJURY ACTION UNLESS PLAINTIFF STIPULATED TO A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN DAMAGES FOR PAST AND FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Relationship of Prenuptial Agreement to Temporary Maintenance and Award of... Determination of Paternity Not in Child’s Best Interest; Mother Equitably...